Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!caip!topaz!ll-xn!nike!ucbcad!ucbvax!hplabs!tektronix!orca!tekecs!jans
From: jans@tekecs.UUCP (Jan Steinman)
Newsgroups: net.lang.st80
Subject: Re: Typed Smalltalk
Message-ID: <7462@tekecs.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 16-Jul-86 13:18:10 EDT
Article-I.D.: tekecs.7462
Posted: Wed Jul 16 13:18:10 1986
Date-Received: Fri, 18-Jul-86 04:26:18 EDT
References: <799@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu> <546@watmum.UUCP>
Reply-To: jans@tekecs.UUCP (Jan Steinman)
Organization: Tektronix, Wilsonville OR
Lines: 25

In article <546@watmum.UUCP> gvcormack@watmum.UUCP (Gordon V. Cormack) writes:
>> I have recently noticed few messages related to adding type mechanisms
>> to Smalltalk.  I fail to see the appeal in adding types to Smalltalk.
>
>So I am 100% behind any attempt to introduce static type checking
>(which would guarantee that the error "don't understand xxx" would
>never occur), provided that it does not destroy the polymorphic
>capabilities of the language.

Please!  Don't take away my "does not understand" notifier!  This is
vastly different than your typical C complie time message: "line 24:
type mismatch".  Chances are you've arrived at this notifier as a
result of either "perform:"ing into a dictionary or by not using the
browser.  Static type checking would do little for the former, and
Smalltalk programming experience quickly cures the latter.  (Compare
with a new C programmer who doesn't use sections 2 and 3 of the
manual.)

I've recently become convinced there is *one* use for type checking in
Smalltalk: when Smalltalk is being interfaced with type checked
languages!
-- 
:::::: Artificial   Intelligence   Machines   ---   Smalltalk   Project ::::::
:::::: Jan Steinman		Box 1000, MS 60-405	(w)503/685-2956 ::::::
:::::: tektronix!tekecs!jans	Wilsonville, OR 97070	(h)503/657-7703 ::::::